Surprisingly, The former Sen. Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos has offered the Presidential Electoral Tribunal’s excusal of his survey challenge Vice President Leni Robredo.
In view of this, Marcos recorded a 96-paged movement for reevaluation encouraging the Supreme Court, sitting as PET, to continue with his third reason for activity, which includes the invalidation of votes in the three Mindanao regions because of supposed far reaching psychological oppression, viciousness, dangers, pressure, power, terrorizing, and multiplication of pre-concealed polling forms.
In the decision wrote by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the PET said Marcos neglected to put forth out his defense and engaging his third reason for activity is to chance baffling the legitimate exercise of the country’s vote based will and subject it to the unlimited impulses of a crushed up-and-comer.
Along with this, Robredo’s legal counselor, Romulo Macalintal, brought up this. He said: “Mr. Marcos would be the most fortunate man on the planet in the event that he could turn around the consistent choice by just rehashing similar issues and contentions previously chose by the whole.
In fact, Marcos attested that the third reason for activity in his survey fight is free, and was excused even before he had the chance to introduce his proof. He contended that the update of votes in his three pilot regions his second reason for activity and it won’t deliver unsettled his third reason for activity.
For this reason, Marcos said he would presently don’t challenge the excusal of his second reason for activity “for down to earth reasons and because of time limitations given that the following public races is set for one year from now,” yet argues for the reexamination of his third reason for activity.
He attested that Rules 65 of the PET will possibly apply if the reason for activity is restricted to the legal relate and update of polling forms, however since there is a third reason for activity requiring the cancellation of political decision results, this “can and should continue freely.
Additionaly, he also refered to the different assessments of Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta and Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan. The two justices agreed with the consequence of case. The part of Gaerlan’s assessment read that the cancellation of decisions is an unmistakable and discretionary cure that benefits separated treatment from appointive dissent and quo warranto petitions.
Consequently, Gaerlan highlighted that the survey fight was appropriately excused for inability to demonstrate significant recuperation in the pilot regions however noticed that he is composing a different assessment “in the desire for directing future mediations” including dissolution of races.
Morever, Peralta in the mean time said as he would like to think that he concurs with Justice Gaerlan’s proposal that, in the meantime, the Tribunal may utilize the Rules of Court and the choices of the Supreme Court and this Tribunal to work with the goal and mien of cases for abrogation of political decision results.